from Circuit Court of Vermilion County No. 14CM118 Honorable
Mark S. Goodwin, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justices Harris and Appleton concurred in the
judgment and opinion.
1 In January 2015, the State charged defendant, Luis H.
Avelar, with three counts of violation of an order of
protection. The order of protection at issue prohibited
defendant from being within 200 feet of his ex-girlfriend,
L.H., and their children, E.A., P.A., and O.A. At the March
2015 jury trial, the evidence showed that defendant picked up
two of his children from L.H.'s home in Watseka and took
them to Hoopeston, where defendant lived. Defendant then
called L.H. and told her that he and the children were at the
McDonald's in Hoopeston. When L.H. went to McDonald's
to pick up the kids, she and defendant argued. Police later
arrested defendant for violating the order of protection. The
jury found defendant guilty of all three counts of violating
the order of protection. The trial court later sentenced
defendant to two years' probation.
2 On appeal, defendant argues that two of his convictions for
violation of an order of protection must be vacated because
they violate the one-act, one-crime doctrine. We disagree and
3 I. BACKGROUND
4 Because the parties do not dispute the facts of this case,
we provide only the fac- tual background necessary to place
defendant's claim in context.
5 In August 2013, the trial court entered a plenary order of
protection against de- fendant. The petitioner was
L.H.-defendant's ex-girlfriend and the mother of three of
his children. The petition sought to protect L.H. and
L.H.'s daughter-S.M.-along with the children of defendant
and L.H.-E.A., P.A., and O.A. The order of protection
required, among other things, that defendant stay 200 feet
from (1) L.H., (2) S.M., (3) E.A., (4) P.A., and (5) O.A. The
order was effective until August 2015.
6 In February 2014, the State filed an information against
defendant, which the State amended in January 2015. The
amended information charged defendant with three counts of
violating an order of protection (720 ILCS 5/12-3.4(a)(1)(i)
(West 2014)), alleging that defendant "had contact"
with L.H., E.A., and P.A., respectively.
7 At the March 2015 jury trial, the evidence showed that on
February 16, 2014, de- fendant picked up E.A. and P.A. from
their home in Watseka, where they lived with L.H., and took
them to Hoopeston, where defendant lived. Defendant later
called L.H., told her he was with the children, and asked her
to meet him at the McDonald's in Hoopeston so L.H. could
take the children back to her home. L.H. met defendant and
the children at McDonald's, where an argument began.
Police were called, and defendant was arrested for violating
the order of protection. During closing argument, the State
argued that defendant had violated the order of protection
three times, in that "defendant was there at the ***
McDonald's *** in Hoopeston. *** [H]e came and got the
kids and drove 'em, drove 'em there."
8 The jury found defendant guilty of all three counts of
violating an order of protec- tion. The trial court sentenced
him to two years' probation. ¶ 9 This appeal
10 II. ANALYSIS
11 Defendant argues that we should vacate two of his
convictions for violating an order of protection because they
violate the one-act, one-crime doctrine. ...